[Bug 1119056] Review Request: python-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119056 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119056] Review Request: python-idna - Internationalized Domain Names in Applications (IDNA)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119056 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- python-idna-1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-idna-1.0-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1119063] Review Request: python-service-identity - Service identity verification for pyOpenSSL
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1119063 --- Comment #1 from Mohammed Arafa --- bug 1177388 is dependent on this package -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177038] Review Request: qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 - WebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177038 --- Comment #5 from Rex Dieter --- The missing file is in qt5-qtbase (probably a side effect of monolithic vs. separate module tarballs). I wouldn't consider it a review blocker, the licensing intent here is fairly consistent and clear. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135503] Review Request: khelpcenter - Application to show KDE Application's documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135503 Christopher Meng changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|i...@cicku.me |nob...@fedoraproject.org Flags|fedora-review? | |needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) | --- Comment #8 from Christopher Meng --- (In reply to Rex Dieter from comment #7) > ping, awaiting feedback from reviewer. Sorry Rex, I'm busy now, I will reassign and let others review this. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1149407] Review Request: rOCCI-server - Ruby OCCI Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149407 František Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from František Dvořák --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rOCCI-server Short Description: Ruby OCCI Server Upstream URL: https://github.com/EGI-FCTF/rOCCI-server Owners: valtri Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1149407] Review Request: rOCCI-server - Ruby OCCI Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149407 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Okay, approving. -- This package (rOCCI-server) is APPROVED by mtasaka -- -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155778] Review Request: python-regex - Alternative regular expression module, to replace re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-regex-2014.11.14-1.e |python-regex-2014.11.14-1.e |l6 |l7 --- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1155778] Review Request: python-regex - Alternative regular expression module, to replace re
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1155778 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|python-regex-2014.11.14-1.f |python-regex-2014.11.14-1.e |c20 |l6 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- python-regex-2014.11.14-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1172705] Review Request: kde-plasma-networkmanagement-extras - NetworkManager KDE Extras
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1172705 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||kde-plasma-networkmanagemen ||t-extras-0.9.0.9-1.el7 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2014-12-31 18:09:40 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- kde-plasma-networkmanagement-extras-0.9.0.9-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1173839] Review Request: fstrm - Frame Streams implementation in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1173839 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|fstrm-0.2.0-1.fc21 |fstrm-0.2.0-1.el7 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- fstrm-0.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1101308] Review Request: drupal7-panels - The Panels module allows a site administrator to create customized layouts
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1101308 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- drupal7-panels-3.4-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1102297] Review Request: drupal7-module_filter - Module filter gives the ability to quickly find the module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102297 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177038] Review Request: qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 - WebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177038 --- Comment #4 from Taylor Braun-Jones --- (1) There are several inconsistencies in the licensing information that ships with the qtwebsockets package so I've filed a bug to get it sorted out: https://bugreports.qt-project.org/browse/QTBUG-43611 I'll follow up with an updated spec once that bug gets sorted out. I'll also use the new URL for the 'see also' reference: http://doc.qt.io/qt-5/licensing.html (2) qt5-qtbase-static is not actually a build dependencies so it has been removed. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142491] Review Request: rubygem-ox - Fast XML parser and object serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142491 František Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #1 from František Dvořák --- Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-ox-2.1.6-1/rubygem-ox.spec SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rubygem-ox-2.1.6-1/rubygem-ox-2.1.6-1.fc22.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8508423 %changelog * Wed Dec 31 2014 František Dvořák - 2.1.6-1 - Update to 2.1.6 - Changed license from BSD to MIT (https://github.com/ohler55/ox/issues/104) - Tests added -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135511] Review Request: kmenuedit - KDE menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135511 --- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter --- scratch build failed, /usr/include/qt5/QtCore/qshareddata.h: In instantiation of 'QExplicitlySharedDataPointer::QExplicitlySharedDataPointer(const QExplicitlySharedDataPointer&) [with X = KSycocaEntry; T = KServiceGroup]': ../treeview.cpp:376:67: required from here /usr/include/qt5/QtCore/qshareddata.h:166:21: error: invalid conversion from 'KSycocaEntry*' to 'KServiceGroup*' [-fpermissive] : d(o.data()) ^ /usr/include/qt5/QtCore/qshareddata.h: In instantiation of 'QExplicitlySharedDataPointer::QExplicitlySharedDataPointer(const QExplicitlySharedDataPointer&) [with X = KSycocaEntry; T = KService]': ../treeview.cpp:381:62: required from here /usr/include/qt5/QtCore/qshareddata.h:166:21: error: invalid conversion from 'KSycocaEntry*' to 'KService*' [-fpermissive] I suspect we probably just need an update (newer version) to work with latest kf5. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174097] Review Request: nodebrain - Rule Engine for State and Event Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174097 --- Comment #10 from Ed Trettevik --- Spec URL: http://nodebrain.org/fedora/nodebrain-0.9.03-7/nodebrain.spec SRPM URL: http://nodebrain.org/fedora/nodebrain-0.9.03-7/nodebrain-0.9.03-7.fc21.src.rpm koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8508317 Thank you very much for the review. Think I've implemented all your recommended changes. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135511] Review Request: kmenuedit - KDE menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135511
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dvra...@redhat.com
Flags||needinfo?(dvra...@redhat.co
||m)
--- Comment #1 from Rex Dieter ---
scratch build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8508331
naming: ok
sources: ok
7941bb5b43b6abc883d98c384f6f062a kmenuedit-5.0.1.tar.xz
macros: ok (mostly)
1. SHOULD use
make install/fast DESTDIR=%{buildroot} -C %{_target_platform}
in preference over
%make_install -C %{_target_platform}
scriptlets: ok
2. MUST add
BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
and
%check
desktop-file-validate %{buildroot}%{_datadir}/applications/kmenuedit.desktop
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135511] Review Request: kmenuedit - KDE menu editor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135511 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135509] Review Request: kinfocenter - KDE Info Center
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135509 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|jgrul...@redhat.com Flags||needinfo?(jgrulich@redhat.c ||om) --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- ping, awaiting feedback from reviewer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1135503] Review Request: khelpcenter - Application to show KDE Application's documentation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1135503 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(i...@cicku.me) --- Comment #7 from Rex Dieter --- ping, awaiting feedback from reviewer. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1080411] Review Request: trojita - Qt IMAP e-mail client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080411 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard|NotReady| --- Comment #19 from Rex Dieter --- Ping, Christopher, can you continue with the review? it's been a couple of months since comment #14 requesting feedback. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177038] Review Request: qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 - WebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177038 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added CC||tay...@braun-jones.org Flags||needinfo?(taylor@braun-jone ||s.org) --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8508255 sources: ok 0c406bca48296d0d99cc93b00f40aca7 qtwebsockets-opensource-src-5.4.0.tar.xz naming: ok macros: ok scriptlets: ok The rest looks fairly clean and simple. Please fix items 1,2 from comment #1, and it looks like we have a winner. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073794] Review Request: qt5-qt3d - Qt3D (and QtQuick3D) for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073794 --- Comment #3 from Rex Dieter --- Build failed, 5. MUST add (at least) BuildRequires: qt5-qtbase-devel -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073794] Review Request: qt5-qt3d - Qt3D (and QtQuick3D) for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073794
Rex Dieter changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||tom...@tomasm.tk
Flags||needinfo?(tom...@tomasm.tk)
--- Comment #2 from Rex Dieter ---
Naming: NOT Ok
1. MUST drop .TMM string from Release: tag
license: ok
sources: ok
(would be nice to get a fresh snapshot, this one is fairly old by now)
scriptlets: ok
macros: ok (mostly)
2. SHOULD use newer %{qmake_qt5} macro instead of %{_qt5_qmake}
%files: NOT ok
3. MUST package lib soname symlinks and *.prf files in -devel subpkg
%{_qt5_libdir}/libQt53DQuick.so
%{_qt5_libdir}/libQt53D.so
%{_qt5_libdir}/libQt53D*.prl
4. MUST drop needless -static pkg, I'd recommend simply omitting *.la files
from packaging
scratch build underway:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8508245
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1073794] Review Request: qt5-qt3d - Qt3D (and QtQuick3D) for Qt5
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1073794 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177038] Review Request: qt5-qtwebsockets - Qt5 - WebSockets component
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177038 Rex Dieter changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rdie...@math.unl.edu Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142491] Review Request: rubygem-ox - Fast XML parser and object serializer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142491 František Dvořák changed: What|Removed |Added Whiteboard||NotReady -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1138423] Review Request: rpmlint-scl-config - Software Collections related configuration for rpmlint
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1138423 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- rpmlint-scl-config-0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1142497] Review Request: rubygem-opennebula - OpenNebula Client API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142497 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- rubygem-opennebula-4.10.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177857] Review Request: libSEDML - Library that fully supports SED-ML for SBML
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177857 --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande --- Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSEDML/libSEDML.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSEDML/libSEDML-0.3.0-2.20141230gitb455cd.fc21.src.rpm Excluded the packaging of the static file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177625] Review Request: libSBML - Systems Biology Markup Language API library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177625 --- Comment #2 from Antonio Trande --- Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBML/libSBML.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBML/libSBML-5.11.0-2.fc21.src.rpm Excluded the packaging of the static file. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1102297] Review Request: drupal7-module_filter - Module filter gives the ability to quickly find the module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1102297 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/drupal7-module_filter-2.0-0.1.alpha2.el6 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176896] Review Request: nodejs-zip-stream - A streaming zip archive generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176896 Bug 1176896 depends on bug 1176895, which changed state. Bug 1176895 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-compress-commons - A library that defines a common interface for working with archive formats https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176895 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176895] Review Request: nodejs-compress-commons - A library that defines a common interface for working with archive formats
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176895 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-12-31 13:18:45 --- Comment #9 from Piotr Popieluch --- package built, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176808] Review Request: nodejs-through2 - A tiny wrapper around Node streams2 Transform to avoid explicit subclassing noise
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176808 Bug 1176808 depends on bug 1176881, which changed state. Bug 1176881 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-bl - A Node.js Buffer list collector, reader and streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176881 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176882] Review Request: nodejs-tar-stream - A streaming tar parser and generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176882 Bug 1176882 depends on bug 1176881, which changed state. Bug 1176881 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-bl - A Node.js Buffer list collector, reader and streamer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176881 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176881] Review Request: nodejs-bl - A Node.js Buffer list collector, reader and streamer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176881 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-12-31 13:18:15 --- Comment #8 from Piotr Popieluch --- package built, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177550] Review Request: nodejs-archiver - a streaming interface for archive generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177550 Bug 1177550 depends on bug 1176882, which changed state. Bug 1176882 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-tar-stream - A streaming tar parser and generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176882 What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176882] Review Request: nodejs-tar-stream - A streaming tar parser and generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176882 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-12-31 13:17:51 --- Comment #5 from Piotr Popieluch --- package built in f21. f20 epel7 builds fail, too old version of nodejs-deep-equal. closing report -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176882] Review Request: nodejs-tar-stream - A streaming tar parser and generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176882 --- Comment #4 from Fedora Update System --- nodejs-tar-stream-1.1.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/nodejs-tar-stream-1.1.1-1.fc21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176882] Review Request: nodejs-tar-stream - A streaming tar parser and generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176882 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177550] Review Request: nodejs-archiver - a streaming interface for archive generation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177550 Bug 1177550 depends on bug 1176896, which changed state. Bug 1176896 Summary: Review Request: nodejs-zip-stream - A streaming zip archive generator https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176896 What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1176896] Review Request: nodejs-zip-stream - A streaming zip archive generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1176896 Piotr Popieluch changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-12-31 13:01:22 --- Comment #8 from Piotr Popieluch --- package built, closing. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] Review Request: libSBW - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||505154 (FE-SCITECH) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 [Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 505154] Tracker: Review Requests for Science and Technology related packages
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505154 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||1177958 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 [Bug 1177958] Review Request: libSBW - C++ Broker library -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1149407] Review Request: rOCCI-server - Ruby OCCI Server
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1149407
--- Comment #5 from František Dvořák ---
(In reply to Mamoru TASAKA from comment #4)
> * Creating user
> - Is the shell of "rocci" user okay with /bin/bash? (/sbin/nologin
> preferred?)
>
Nice catch! Fixed.
> * Selinux related
> - Well, I don't know selinux handling in detail, so if I am
> wrong, please correct me. Now:
>
> * Status of log files
> - What selinux status does files under
> %{_localstatedir}/log/rocci-server/
> after the final "removal" of rOCCI-server?
> Log files under %{_localstatedir}/log/rocci-server/ can remail
> undeleted
> after the removal of rOCCI-server rpm, and can't those files be
> undefined
> selinux state without again executing "restorecon" at %postun with "$1
> == 0"?
>
You're right. It is more interresting: passenger_log_t type is part of the main
selinux policy already, so in this case it will remain on the files even after
uninstalling both rOCCI-server and passenger. But it will be better to keep
contexts consistent with currentley installed SELinux modules ==> calling
restorecon to reset it to var_log_t.
> * Documentation
> - Can files under %{app_root}/examples/ moved to -doc subpackage?
>
OK, moved.
> * Requires for rubygem(%{openssl_cms})
> - By the way, not strictly for this package, however are there any
> reason why rubygem(%{openssl_cms}) has different naming between
> ruby 2.0 and ruby 2.1?
> Note that when gem contains C extension (under %gem_extdir_mri),
> C library dependency is correctly added by rpmbuild process
> (like libruby.so.2.1), and there should be no need to append
> additional suffix to %gem_name, e.g.
>
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=596281
> http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=596282
>
This is little more complicated. There are really used different gems
(different code branches) for each ruby version in openssl_cms, so gems are
named by upstream with the suffix.
It's true it would be possible to do some patching and "lie" about the gem name
(it is not on rubygem.org, so it would be even less complicated), but I've
rather remained closer to the upstream way.
> Other things looks okay.
The new version:
Spec URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rOCCI-server-1.0.5-3/rOCCI-server.spec
SRPM URL:
http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/rOCCI-server-1.0.5-3/rOCCI-server-1.0.5-3.fc22.src.rpm
%changelog
* Wed Dec 31 2014 František Dvořák - 1.0.5-3
- No shell for rocci user
- SELinux cleanups: rules for Fedora 22, dependencies, context after uninstall
- Update README.Fedora
- Examples to doc subpackage
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177958] New: Review Request: libSBW - C++ Broker library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177958 Bug ID: 1177958 Summary: Review Request: libSBW - C++ Broker library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libSBW.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/libSBW/libSBW-2.11.1-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: The C++ Broker is a port from the original SBW Broker (written in JAVA) to C++. The current version implements all the functionality for the local side. Meaning if you will just use the Broker on a single machine you should be fine using the C++ Broker. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter Together with libSBML and libSEDML, libSBW is a library useful to compile COPASI biochemical network simulator (coming soon). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739 Mamoru TASAKA changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from Mamoru TASAKA --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: rubygem-vte3 Short Description: Ruby binding of VTE Upstream URL: http://ruby-gnome2.sourceforge.jp/ Owners: mtasaka Branches: f21 InitialCC: -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739 --- Comment #2 from Mamoru TASAKA --- Thank you! 1) Usually rubygem-glib2 dependency is the most important, so for now I write BR version dependency only for rubygem-glib2-devel. 2) Ah... well, %gem_install in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.rubygems may have to fix, I will check this (there can be a problem when we want to change CONFIGURE_ARGS - currently it seems okay, however when we change ruby to 2.2 on F-22, perhaps it is better to modify /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.rubygems at this timing) 3) - ruby-gnome2 suite all is currently under LGPLv2+. I will change to better comments. - I will modify description - -c option for install command is actually not needed (does nothing), just my habit :) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169493] Review Request: python-markups - A wrapper around various text markups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169493 --- Comment #4 from Mario Blättermann --- Hi Florian, thanks for taking this review. The wrong disttag is fixed, new files: Spec URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/python-markups.spec SRPM URL: https://mariobl.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/python-markups-0.5.2-4.fc21.src.rpm I've also removed a duplicate entry from %files in the python3 section. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177942] New: Review Request: marsshooter - M.A.R.S. - A Ridiculous Shooter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177942 Bug ID: 1177942 Summary: Review Request: marsshooter - M.A.R.S. - A Ridiculous Shooter Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mgans...@alice.de QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SPECS/marsshooter.spec SRPM URL: https://martinkg.fedorapeople.org/Review/SRPMS/marsshooter-0.7.5-1.20140507gitc855d04.fc21.src.rpm Description: It is a game for two players, flying with ships in a two-dimensional space setting, governed by the laws of gravity. It features: * awesome 2D-graphics with an unique style * a stunning amount of particles * single- and multiplayer-support * an artificial intelligence using an aggro-system, which reacts differentlyupon varying situations * many impressive weapons * customizable ships * a very sexy GUI * several game modes: Sacceball, TeamDeathmatch, Cannonkeep, Deathmatch, Grave-Itation Pit Fedora Account System Username: martinkg %changelog * Wed Dec 31 2014 Martin Gansser - 0.7.5-1.20140507gitc855d04 - initial build for Fedora rpmlint marsshooter-0.7.5-1.20140507gitc855d04.fc21.x86_64.rpm marsshooter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multiplayer -> multiplier, multiplexer marsshooter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US differentlyupon -> differently upon, differently-upon, differentiation marsshooter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US customizable -> customization marsshooter.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Sacceball -> Baseball marsshooter.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary marsshooter 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1150734] Review Request: sugar-backgrounds - Sugar Desktop Backgrounds
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1150734 --- Comment #2 from Piotr Popieluch --- No response for over two months. Do you still want to continue with this review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1174097] Review Request: nodebrain - Rule Engine for State and Event Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174097
Christopher Meng changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||i...@cicku.me
--- Comment #9 from Christopher Meng ---
This doesn't match our requirement:
1. # Group will be dropped when no distribution complains
%if 0%{?rhel} || 0%{?centos}
Group: Development/Languages
%else
# Drop group for fedora now, keep for others
%if 0%{?fedora} == 0
Group: Development/Languages/Other
%endif
%endif
Please, just drop them unless you're gonna package this for EPEL5.
2. Source: http://downloads.sourceforge.net/nodebrain/nodebrain-0.9.03.tar.gz
Patch: nodebrain-0.9.03-messages.patch
URL: http://nodebrain.org/
It's better to put URL tag above the Source tag.
And, for the link in the source, use %version macro will help you reduce the
time to update the URL.
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/nodebrain/nodebrain-%{version}.tar.gz
3. %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19 || 0%{?rhel} >= 6 || 0%{?centos} >= 6 ||
0%{?suse_version} >= 1200
%else
BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
%endif
I don't want to see any SUSE stuffs in Fedora package, I hope you can drop
that.
And for the buildroot tag, you don't need to use such a long conditional line
to satisfy the rpmlint or whatever, just drop this.
4. %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19 || 0%{?centos} >= 6 || 0%{?suse_version} >= 1200
BuildRequires: pkgconfig(libedit) pkgconfig(libpcre) pkgconfig(openssl) gettext
pkgconfig
%else
BuildRequires: pcre-devel openssl-devel gettext pkgconfig
%endif
I think it's just a waste of space. It doesn't mean that Fedora 18 can't do
this job.
5.
%prep
%setup -q
%patch -p1
%build
%configure
make %{?_smp_mflags}
I hope you can leave a blank line above the %build.
6. %if 0%{?fedora} >= 19 || 0%{?rhel} >= 6 || 0%{?centos} >= 6 ||
0%{?suse_version} >= 1200
%else
%clean
rm -rf %{buildroot}
%endif
Same applies to this.
7. Static packages are not welcome.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Packaging_Static_Libraries
8. Requires: pkgconfig
Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: pcre-devel
Requires: openssl-devel
Requires: glibc-devel
Drop R line of pkgconfig, if you install a pkgconfig file in this package, RPM
will pick this dependency up automatically.
9. For the %{?_isa} macro, you should use it everywhere in -devel:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Requiring_Base_Package
10. %{_libdir}/*.so
%exclude %{_libdir}/*.so.*
%exclude %{_libdir}/nb-0
We always do like this:
%files
%{_libdir}/*.so.*
%files devel
%{_libdir}/*.so
Put your plugins in main packages as well, as you've put them to a nb-0
directory, I think it's OK. But don't misinclude other unversioned library
files in the main package.
11. I think you don't have to mention glibc in most of packages, it's a default
dep of the basic system.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 --- Comment #2 from Christopher Meng --- Thanks for doing this, I actually wanted to leave a reply at the original bug, but I was taking exams. It'd be better to see my original spec as well, although I still manage to restore it from my SSD. Just a note, I don't want to see a SUSE style package, I know this has been pushed to SUSE repo, but I think there are too many subpackages. Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1169493] Review Request: python-markups - A wrapper around various text markups
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1169493
Florian "der-flo" Lehner changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC||d...@der-flo.net
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|d...@der-flo.net
Flags||fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Florian "der-flo" Lehner ---
Hi Mario!
Just one minor thing:
Replace:
Release:3%{dist}
With:
Release:3%{?dist}
After you fixed this, I will do another review.
Cheers,
Flo
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 5 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Python:
[x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process.
[x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should
provide egg info.
[x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python
[x]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
[x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
Replace:
Release:3%{dist}
With:
Release:3%{?dist}
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
python3-markups
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not incl
[Bug 1033413] Review Request: smuxi - An user-friendly IRC client based on GNOME/GTK+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1033413 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE Last Closed||2014-12-31 06:09:12 --- Comment #24 from Antonio Trande --- *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1177926 *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Antonio Trande changed: What|Removed |Added CC||i...@cicku.me --- Comment #1 from Antonio Trande --- *** Bug 1033413 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177926] New: Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177926 Bug ID: 1177926 Summary: Review Request: smuxi - Powerful, flexible, user-friendly chat client Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nob...@fedoraproject.org Reporter: anto.tra...@gmail.com QA Contact: extras...@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Spec URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi.spec SRPM URL: https://sagitter.fedorapeople.org/smuxi/smuxi-0.11-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Smuxi is an open-source, powerful, flexible, and user-friendly chat client created by Mirco Bauer and developed by other contributors. Inspired by the combination of screen and irssi, Smuxi has a detachable server (or like a "normal" client) that stays connected when you aren't, and can allow multiple Smuxi front-ends (like the GNOME front-end, or STFL text-based front-end) to be connected and in sync. This is similar to screen+irssi or IRC bouncers, but more elegant and powerful. Fedora Account System Username: sagitter -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1177739] Review Request: rubygem-vte3 - Ruby binding of VTE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177739
František Dvořák changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from František Dvořák ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see
attachment). Verify they are not in ld path.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 7 files have unknown
license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/gems,
/usr/share/gems/doc
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Ruby:
[x]: Platform dependent files must all go under %{gem_extdir_mri}, platform
independent under %{gem_dir}.
[x]: Gem package must not define a non-gem subpackage
[x]: Macro %{gem_extdir} is deprecated.
[x]: Gem package is named rubygem-%{gem_name}
[x]: Package contains BuildRequires: rubygems-devel.
[x]: Gem package must define %{gem_name} macro.
[x]: Package does not contain Requires: ruby(abi).
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[x]: Avoid bundling fonts in non-fonts packages.
Note: Package contains font files
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Note: proper way would be to include license text in each gem by upstream.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{
[Bug 1174097] Review Request: nodebrain - Rule Engine for State and Event Monitoring
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174097
--- Comment #8 from Ed Trettevik ---
Spec URL: http://nodebrain.org/fedora/nodebrain-0.9.03-6/nodebrain.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nodebrain.org/fedora/nodebrain-0.9.03-6/nodebrain-0.9.03-6.fc21.src.rpm
koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8503730
Changed subpackage fully versioned dependency on main package to use
%{name}%{?_isa} instead of hard coded package name.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
